It was nice to see candidate Romney in the neighborhood yesterday. Energy independence for North America. That makes perfect sense. It would be good for national security, manufacturing, exports, trade deficit balnace of payments, revenues to the treasury, deficits, debt, the value of the dollar, consumer prices, national income and our standard of living. Yet the opponent opposes it, with opposition to pipelines and opposition to drilling in ANWR, federal lands and offshore.

I didn’t exactly spend the evening with Romney, of course. I spent it driving to the Lafayette Club on Lake Minnetonka for Romney’s only Minnesota appearance of the campaign; waiting in line for a photograph for a considerable time because the candidate ran an hour late; listening to Norm Coleman warm up the crowd, following Congressmen John Kline and Erik Paulsen in that role; and finally hearing Romney speak for 20 minutes or so.

It was great fun. The event was a big success, raising a considerable amount for Romney’s campaign. And how was Romney? Sensational. But let’s go back to the beginning.

Rounding the corner to pull into the Lafayette Club’s parking lot, security was tight. Across the road, a pathetic, ragtag group of left-wing protesters were chanting, as usual, “We are the 99 percent.” There were conservative counter-protesters too; I couldn’t tell which group was more numerous. The largest sign said “Romney Creates Jobs.” I wanted to park my car, get out and confront the leftists, but unfortunately the security arrangements didn’t permit that. Otherwise, I would have approached some of them and taped interviews. The question I always want to ask is, “If you are the 99 percent, why are there only 11 of you?”

Once inside, the size of the crowd was impressive. Staff diverted me to the photograph line, where I spent quite a while, saw a lot of old friends, and made a few new ones. Once Romney arrived the line moved fast, and I only had time to say, “Governor, you and I overlapped at Harvard, but you were more successful in later life.” Which provoked a cordial laugh from the candidate.

Before long the photo line was done and Romney appeared to thunderous applause. Which is, of course, the point of this post: how did Mitt do? The answer is, he was great. He spoke for 20 minutes or so, no notes, no teleprompter, totally comfortable with his material. He tossed in facts and figures here and there, but his themes were generally broader: the power of the individual, the Constitution, entrepreneurship and rewarding success, the importance of American power, and so on. His themes were deeply conservative, yet unifying. At no time did he pit one group of Americans against another. He said, “I don’t want to raise anyone’s taxes!” Even though there was probably not a single Democrat in the audience, he said that there are good Democrats and independents, and he wants to work with them in Washington. He did, really, a beautiful job of weaving together the various strands of conservative thought.

What was most striking was how impassioned Romney was. He was nearing the end of a very long day, but he was not just energetic but passionate. America has obviously gone off the rails under the direction of an incompetent administration, and he wants to restore America’s greatness for the benefit of future generations. The strength of his emotional commitment to this cause was palpable.

As I listened to Romney, I asked myself: what better spokesman for conservative ideas have we had in recent years? I couldn’t think of any. You can go back to Reagan, of course. Reagan’s style was more cerebral, less passionate. He was a great articulator of conservatism, but no better, in my opinion, than Romney. Since Reagan? I can’t think of anyone.

While Romney spoke, I was flanked by two of Minnesota’s most dedicated conservative activists and donors. I asked each in turn, what better spokesman for conservative principles has our movement had in recent years? Like me, they couldn’t come up with any. Romney is as effective on the stump as any conservative I can remember. Of course, most voters will never see him this way. I think the Romney campaign needs to film him before audiences like tonight’s, and edit 30 or 60 second ads of him speaking to a friendly crowd the way he did tonight. Or, as one of my friends suggested, they could emulate Reagan and buy 30 minutes of network time for a more comprehensive speech. One way or another, Romney needs voters to see him unleashed and unedited.

I think Mitt Romney is going to be our next president. I heard tonight that the latest private polling has Obama leading Romney in Minnesota by only one point. This is down from five points a month or two ago. If Romney comes close to winning Minnesota, the election won’t be close. But let’s not take any chances. I dug down a bit to support Romney’s campaign tonight; if you haven’t yet done so, you should. This is the pivotal election of our lives. There is, as Adam Smith wrote, a lot of ruin in a country. But I am not certain that the United States could come back from another four years of the incompetent and foolishly left-wing Barack Obama administration. So if you haven’t already contributed to the Romney campaign, please do so. If, God forbid, Barack Obama is re-elected, it would be hard to look in the mirror and realize that we didn’t do all we could to put America back on the path to prosperity and freedom. - John Hinderacker, PowerLine

Thanks for posting, good to be aware of these stories. It is all just pointing to shiny objects to me.

If it is all true and we dont know that, a number of key points are still not refuted:

a. Romney has very extensive business experience,

b. that experience includes start ups and turnarounds,

c. his experience and record overall was unquestionably one of success by every measure,

d. no business career has all ups and no downs,

e. the playing field of business today includes wading through many artificial factors, tax avoidance, regulatory hurdles, tax deductions, shelters, bailouts, you name it. Opposing those rules doesnt mean you dont play by them.

f. None of the mudslinging even begins to imply he isnt the most ethical executive possible, and successful.

g. The question isnt whether Mitt Romney is up to the job of running Bain. The question is whether Barack Obama is up to the job of being President.

Unless we are going with "the YA Strategy" for dismembering Pakistan, as best as I can tell there is no point to staying in Afg. That said, the larger point of this piece makes sense to me:

The Silence of the Republican Lamb Mr. Romney's reluctance to outline a policy on the war does not make the conflict go away..By WILLIAM MCGURN

When the first of the Twin Towers came crashing down that terrible September morning in 2001, I was stepping on a Hudson River ferry bound for downtown Manhattan.

Five years later, I spent the anniversary in the White House helping President George W. Bush with his remarks for his prime-time address to the nation.

In the run-up to this Sept. 11, my family attended a party for a hometown Marine who will soon deploy to Afghanistan. He's the brother of one of my daughter's grade-school classmates, a recent Annapolis grad and perhaps best described as the kind of man you'd want leading your son if he were being sent into harm's way. As we approach this November's election, it is this Marine who occupies my thoughts.

At West Point in December 2009, Barack Obama summarized what a president owes men like this one. "As your commander in chief," he told those cadets, "I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service." While Iraq had been a distraction, he said, in Afghanistan "the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake."

Since that speech, others have noted President Obama's reluctance to speak of "victory" in association with Afghanistan. A search of the White House website confirms it is not because he's unfamiliar with the word: The president happily talks about victory for health reform, for women, for stem-cell research, for the economy, for same-sex marriage, for working families, for trade.

Nor is he shy about using it pejoratively, as he does when he talks about victories for "big oil," for "special interests," for "Wall Street" and the like.

Some of us were not surprised to find Afghanistan disappear from the president's discourse after he put forth his timetable for withdrawal in the same speech that announced his surge. Nor were we surprised that he would leave unmentioned the real gains our troops were making on the ground. What we did not expect was the Republican Party's acquiescence, most vividly illustrated by the campaign of Mitt Romney.

Enlarge Image

CloseAssociated Press/Brennan Linsley

A U.S. Marine with 3rd Platoon, Kilo Company, 3/4 Marines mans a small checkpoint near Patrol Base 302, in the Gesresk Valley, Helmand province..In the section devoted to Afghanistan on his website, Mr. Romney's starts out strong. He scores Mr. Obama for the "protracted deliberation process" he pursued before he announced his Afghanistan policy, for pulling back troops against the advice of his commanders, indeed, for a withdrawal dictated more by election year politics than military goals. All these things give Mr. Romney an opening to present the American people with a real choice about what ought to come next.

So what does he offer? The next paragraph lays it out. Mr. Romney vows a "review" based on "discussions with our commanders in the field." Not only that, but "a full interagency assessment." More cooperation "with both the Afghan government and Pakistan." And so on.

Maybe that makes political sense, with unemployment stuck above 8% and the economy sputtering. Maybe it represents a calculation that the American people are exhausted by war and unwilling to hear anything but how we are leaving. More charitably, maybe it reflects an old-fashioned sense of honor, of treading lightly on a wartime president's strategy regarding a place where Americans are on the front lines being killed.

Whatever the reason, even after Mr. Obama's surge forces return home, America will have 68,000 men and women in uniform there. Mr. Romney's reluctance to outline a thoughtful policy on Afghanistan does not make it go away. To the contrary, it only ratifies President Obama's contention that the only choice is between getting out quick and an open-ended commitment as far as the eye can see.

That is a disservice. It is, first, a disservice to the stronger foreign policy Mr. Romney is alleged to represent. Does he really believe, for example, that the Israelis will be encouraged and the Iranians deterred by expressions of resolve from a political leader so reluctant to bring up a war Americans are actually fighting?

Silence is also a disservice to those whom we ask to do our fighting. On the night of our Marine's deployment party, we discussed so many things: his favorite books, his future, his dreams. On the failings of this president or his Republican rival, he refused to be drawn out. Plainly the responsibility for the care and leadership of other Marines that came with his lieutenant's bars are worry enough.

There are thousands of young Americans just like him. In my family, I now have one nephew at West Point, and another with the Corps of Cadets at Virginia Tech. So I know the mixed pride and apprehension our military families feel when they look out at this dangerous and unsettled world.

They deserve better. Even at his most unpopular, President Bush got his surge and his war funding by taking his case to the American people. If Mr. Romney wants to be America's commander in chief, he ought to start presenting himself as one.

A version of this article appeared September 11, 2012, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Silence of the Republican Lamb.

What Romney Might Have Said Draft remarks for the candidate on taxes, dependency and the 47%..Article Video Comments (555) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.2EmailPrintSave ↓ More ..smaller Larger Mitt Romney has been taking a beating for his remarks, taped at a May fundraiser, that 47% of Americans would automatically vote for President Obama because they are "dependent" on government. We could pile on, but instead we can report that we've been leaked pages of draft remarks that Mr. Romney might have delivered on the same subject but curiously didn't.

Maybe he'll deliver them some time before Election Day:

Related Video

Columnist Kim Strassel on how Mitt Romney can turn his leaked fundraising video to his advantage. Photo: Associated Press.."One tragedy of the Obama Presidency is how many more Americans have become dependent on the government. I know it's not their fault. Most want to be self-sufficient, to provide for their families, but they can't because there aren't enough jobs.

"That's why 46 million Americans are on food stamps now, compared to 30 million in 2008. That's why 10.6 million were on Social Security disability in 2011 compared to 9.3 million three years earlier. That's why 40% of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or more, and the smallest share of the U.S. population is looking for work than at any time since 1981.

"This is a national scandal. Not because those fellow Americans are free-loaders, but because they aren't able to get a good job that pays enough to be self-sufficient and lets them fulfill their human potential.

"I want Americans to be less dependent on government not because it costs too much. We will always help Americans who need our help. I want Americans to be independent so they can realize the pride of accomplishment and the dignity of work and contribute their God-given talents to build a better country.

"I think the success of a Presidency should be measured by how many fewer people need food stamps, how many fewer need disability, not how many more people are added to the rolls. I don't want to take food stamps away from Americans in need. I want fewer Americans to need food stamps.

"Sometimes I wonder if President Obama shares that view. He and his economists keep saying that food stamps and unemployment benefits are a form of 'stimulus.' Well, we've sure had a lot of that kind of stimulus, and all we have to show for it are more people on food stamps and more people on welfare and more people looking for work. I think a real stimulus is a job, and I intend to help Americans create more of them.

Enlarge Image

CloseGetty Images ."You've probably also heard some people—some even in my own party—divide Americans between 'makers' and 'takers.' As if half the country wants to live off the other half. I've never believed that. That's no different from the kind of divisive politics that the President practices when he pits the wealthy against everyone else.

"We want a society in which one person's success lifts everyone else. The job of government is to create the incentives and opportunity so everyone can become a maker. But too often government wants to take more from Americans so it can make more Americans dependent on government. That's when we lose our way, and too many Americans lose hope that they can work and prosper.

"It's the same with our broken tax policy. You may have heard some people say that about half the American people pay no income tax. That's true. But I know millions of those people do pay Social Security taxes, which are a tax on work. They're making their contribution to our government, and I don't want to—and will not—raise their taxes.

"In fact, I want to reduce the tax on work by repealing ObamaCare, which will force employers to pay a tax if they don't offer health insurance. That means they'll hire fewer workers, as many companies are already doing.

"But I don't want to stop there. I also want to fix our tax code so everyone plays by the same rules, and that includes the richest and most powerful. You know, the President seems to say every day that 'millionaires and billionaires' should pay higher tax rates.

"But what he doesn't say is that if you raise tax rates, those millionaires and billionaires will hire lawyers and lobbyists to avoid those rates, to exploit loopholes and tax shelters, or to get special favors. Like Solyndra did. The government will get less revenue, and that means the middle class will end up paying more. The President won't tell you that either.

"Think about it. Do you have a lobbyist in Washington? Do you have a guy you can call to get you in to see the Treasury Secretary or the Senators in Gucci Gulch? Of course you don't. But the millionaires and billionaires do.

"That's why so many people in both parties support tax reform that lowers tax rates and pays for it by closing loopholes and helping the economy grow faster.

"That's what Ronald Reagan did with Democrats like Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt in the 1980s. That's what Democrat Alice Rivlin and Republican Pete Domenici have proposed. And that's what the President's own deficit commission—led by Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles—proposed.

"I don't agree with all of the details in these plans, but I do know they have the right general idea. We have the most complicated tax code with some of the highest tax rates in the world and yet it doesn't raise the revenue we need to fund the government.

"We need tax reform to spur faster growth and to make American workers more competitive. But we also need reform to make the tax code fairer, and less open to exploitation by the rich and powerful who have friends in Washington."

***That's where the speech excerpts end. No doubt there's more, sitting in the PC of some young wordsmith in Boston who's working for Mr. Romney. Somebody should sneak it past Stuart Stevens. Surely a man as smart as the former CEO of Bain Capital can give a better speech on taxes and dependency than he delivered at that fundraiser. If he can't, he'll lose, and he'll deserve to.

Peggy Noonan takes out the dagger and cuts deep in her latest WSJ column, going where few have publicly about Mitt Romney's general election effort:

"It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one. It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment. All the activists, party supporters and big donors should be pushing for change. People want to focus on who at the top is least constructive and most responsible. Fine, but Mitt Romney is no puppet: He chooses who to listen to. An intervention is in order. “Mitt, this isn’t working.”

She also takes note of the Romney campaign strategy of fundraising quite frequently, with few public events, in the name of stockpiling cash for a final-weeks ad blitz, and calls the logic "slightly crazy:"

"... at the end will they make much difference? Obama is said to have used a lot of his money early on, to paint a portrait of Romney as Thurston Howell III, as David Brooks put it. That was a gamble on Obama’s part: spend it now, pull ahead in the battlegrounds, once we pull ahead more money will come in because money follows winners, not losers."

The entire column is not uplifting for Romney's supporters, many of whom are already feeling fairly grim after a rough few weeks, and it's not meant to be. What has been surprising for Republicans, including some of Romney's donors, has been how different the general election campaign has been from a primary campaign effort that was more able to win the day.

On the home page tonight, my colleagues Glenn Thrush and Byron Tau note that the race is not over yet, for all the hand-wringing among Republicans and ball-spiking among Democrats - the fundamentals nationally still have Obama as a weak and vulnerable incumbent.

The race is winnable, empirically. But Romney has been on defense for a solid stretch now, unable to push out his own narrative. And the problem, Noonan is arguing, is less with the team than the man running. Romney has proven impervious to calls to shift strategy in the past, and it's hard to see him doing something dramatic now, with the first debate in two weeks.

His team is hoping for a national approach that can jolt numbers in some of the swing states - like Ohio, where Romney is, according to private polling on both sides, in a hole - and a press narrative that says the race is still close (the Gallup numbers nationally provided some measure of that earlier today). They're also hoping to highlight things like 14-year-old video that suggests Obama believes what his detractors already think he believes.

It will likely take a few factors to shake things up, including a major Obama stumble. It is by no means out of the realm of possibility. But the days are going.

Mitt and Ann Romney took steps to pay more in taxes than he had to last year, despite the Republican nominee's previous statements suggesting he abhors the idea of paying more taxes than required.

According to an announcement by the campaign Friday, the Romneys could have had a lower tax rate than 14.1% in 2011 if they had claimed more of their charitable deductions–an amount that equaled 30% of their income. Romney made $13.7 million mostly off of investment income last year.

However, the Romneys only claimed 16% in charitable deductions, thus keeping their income tax rate higher, in order "to conform" to Romney's previous comments about his tax rate, the statement read Friday.

Speaking with reporters in South Carolina last month, Romney said he had never paid less than 13% over the last decade. While he had released an estimate for 2011 at the time, he did not release the completed return until Friday. The document showed he in fact paid 14.1% last year.

The Republican presidential nominee has faced intense criticism from Democrats and some Republicans who have called on Romney to release more than his 2011 and 2010 returns. Releasing the documents, they argued, would answer questions about the candidate's offshore accounts and tax history.

His move to limit his charitable deduction-and keep a higher rate of taxes-last year, however, seems to butt heads with statements the former Massachusetts governor has made regarding taxes.

"I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due, I don't think I'd be qualified to become president," Romney told ABC News in July. "I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."

Earlier in the year, at a Republican primary debate in Tampa, Romney made a similar remark, criticizing the notion of paying more than owed.

"I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more," Romney said, one day before he released his 2010 return. "I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes."

To be fair, Romney did pay what he "legally owed" last year; he just kept his legal requirement lower than what it could have been.

Romney's campaign responded to the discrepancy, saying the candidate wanted to be "consistent" with his August comment.

"Gov. Romney has been clear that no American need pay more than he or she owes under the law. At the same time, he was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13%. He directed his preparers to ensure that he is consistent with that statement," a campaign official said in a statement.

First kudo's to Romney. And shame on Biden. Then again, I don't know the circumstances.

That said however, Romney gave approximately 75% of the money to the Mormon Church (some of my good friends are Mormon; I have nothing against the church).

Somehow however, and I'm not sure why, I differentiate church and charity a little. Church almost seems personal; not communal.

I think most of us respect Bill Gates. He has given away 48% of his wealth to various causes (see below). But if he had given75% of his money to his church, would we have the same opinion? If he gave most of his millions/billions to build a new mosque, orto promote Islam or money for proselytizing would we all say "kudo's to him"?

I guess that is why I always like Huntsman. Yes, he would lower the tax rate quite a bit, BUT he would also take away nearlyall deductions including charity giving. If you want to give to your church, then give, it is admirable, but don't give to your God because of tax reasons.

I meant no criticism of the Mormon Church; it is a fine organization from what little I know, although that is a slippery slope; criticizing another's religion.

But for discussion's sake, I remember seeing Mormon Missionaries in the Japanese hinterlands proselytizing for new members. They were efficient, marginally effective, very polite, but it was not charity work. Yet OUR tax dollars support their proselytizing.

"As soon as the video came to light, critics -- including many conservatives -- pointed out that the 47% is composed mostly of disabled veterans, retired people, the working poor, a few thousand millionaires with good tax lawyers and millions of former members of the middle class who have lost their jobs. Some further noted that the policy that gives them a break from paying taxes was an idea championed by many Republicans, such as President Reagan. Only about 15% of the 47% are underemployed poor families who receive food stamps and other government assistance."

As Priebus (Republican National Committee chairman on Sunday) said, ""It probably wasn't the best-said, you know, moment in the campaign and probably not the best week in the campaign," Priebus said on ABC's "This Week."

He did stand by the bigger point, which is that there has been a vast expansion in the % of the American people sucking on the government tit. He' not defending the cranial-rectal interface aspect of his portrayal of that number being 47%.

When given the opportunity by 60 minutes to blame mistakes like this on the campaign, Romney unflichingly said that was not the campaign, that was me. It's been a long time since a President took responsibility.

"So when they hear a guy worth a quarter-billion dollars say he’s cutting taxes but won’t discuss loopholes, this is what I think they hear: he’s going to help himself and his friends, and we’re going to be left paying the bill. There may not be much class envy in America, but there is that much, anyway."

Mitt Romney has given more money to charity over the past two years than either Barack Obama or Joe Biden have in the last DECADE. Look at it as a percentage of their incomes and the picture is even uglier for Obama and Biden. Nevertheless, the pathetic Left in this country continues to whine that Romney is a "spoiled rich brat" and "out-of-touch with working Americans." And Barack Obama is IN TOUCH with them? How has that worked out for the increasingly vast numbers of unemployed and underemployed over the course of his presidency? Someone is out of touch, but it isn't Mitt Romney.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

"this is what I think they hear: he’s going to help himself and his friends, and we’re going to be left paying the bill"

More us versus them, could we just have a separate thread for JDN to express his hatred?

Where is the basis in fact or reality that Mitt Romney wants to help his friends over helping the country? Just hate speech. Nothing else I can imagine could be worse for the people who are "going to be left paying the bill" than the path we are on.

Are you better off now than you were SIX TRILLION DOLLARS of new debt ago?

Mitt Romney has given more money to charity over the past two years than either Barack Obama or Joe Biden have in the last DECADE. Look at it as a percentage of their incomes and the picture is even uglier for Obama and Biden. Nevertheless, the pathetic Left in this country continues to whine that Romney is a "spoiled rich brat" and "out-of-touch with working Americans." And Barack Obama is IN TOUCH with them? How has that worked out for the increasingly vast numbers of unemployed and underemployed over the course of his presidency? Someone is out of touch, but it isn't Mitt Romney.

That's because Romney has more money! Actually, as a percentage, Obama has given a very fair share.

In Romney's case, as pointed out above in this thread, 75% of his giving is to his Mormon Church; our tax dollars pay for those fine young fellows in white shirts and ties proselytizing around the world.

And yes, most Americans think Romney is "out of touch" with working Americans. And yes, his economic plan is to lower taxes for the rich, he's quite definite about that, but rather vague about what deductions if any he will cut for his rich friends. So his friends get richer and America pays. Most people don't "like" or trust Romney; that's his problem.

Recent trends show the economy is improving including housing. Objectivist1, unless there is some major event, it looks like you will have Obama as your President for FOUR MORE YEARS. Aren't you excited Ojectivist1?

PS Doug, I have no hatred; I'm not claiming poverty and I have quite a few very wealthy friends. It's the majority of Americans don't particularly "like" Romney. If the economy wasn't in the doldrums, Obama would crush Romney in nearly every state. Romney's a poor candidate, but it's too late to ask for a refund.

"75% of his giving is to his Mormon Church; our tax dollars pay for those fine young fellows in white shirts and ties proselytizing around the world."

Giving to one's church is a well recognized form of charity. The proslytizing is but one aspect of the Church's work. Regardless of what you may think of the LDS church and its works, the simple fact is that Romney had the generosity of donate 30% of his income. That really is a very high percentage, considerably above BO, and leaving Biden far, far, far in the dust. Nonetheless the media focused on the 14% he paid because his income is mostly capital gains.

"And yes, his economic plan is to lower taxes for the rich, he's quite definite about that, but rather vague about what deductions if any he will cut for his rich friends. So his friends get richer and America pays."

JDN, you please don't continue to play Groundhog Day on tax rates. I suspect some of the snarkiness sometimes directed your way is a result of frustration with your tendency to do this on some issues. His plan is NOT to "lower taxes". His plan is to "lower tax rates". As has been repeatedly explained to you the two are not the same thing. Romney has repeatedly said that deductions will be eliminated in a manner so that net revenues will be unchanged. The vagueness is a political calculation that specificity would set off a special interest firestorm. One may agree or disagree with this calculation, but please accurately describe what his stated position is.

Also, in how you frame what you say, please remember that pretty much everyone here was looking for someone/anyone instead of Romney and that we now support him strongly because Obama is the alternative.

Thank you, President Clinton. Thank you for being a true believer in American exceptionalism. Thank you for being a president who worked with a Republican Congress to balance our budgets and end welfare as we knew it. Thank you for building on the work of your Republican predecessor to expand free trade and bring millions of jobs to America. Thank you for using American power to rescue the people of the Balkans against a butcher in Belgrade—even when the U.N. and Russia tried to get in your way.

And, by the way, thanks for that line about my "sterling business career."

Ladies and gentlemen, you all know the choice we make on election day will count not just for the next four years, but for the next 40.

You know how much the choice will count here in America. It will decide whether we have socialized medicine or a marketplace of medical solutions. It will decide whether our economy creates companies like Staples or like Solyndra. It will decide whether we take advantage of our untapped domestic energy resources, or continue to outsource our energy future to OPEC while we tilt at windmills here at home. It will decide whether we'll be a low-tax country that makes investments for the future, or a high-tax country paying interest on the ever-growing debts of our past.

But the choice Americans make in November will count far beyond America's shores.

It's no secret that we're in a world of crises. Europe's economic woes seem to have no end in sight—even if they are a lesson in plain sight of what happens to countries that favor entitlements over entrepreneurs. In the Middle East, Islamist governments are trafficking in illiberal ideas that, as we saw two weeks ago, can have tragic consequences for Americans. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have squandered the sacrifices of our troops with withdrawals and timetables intended to suit political convenience, not strategic necessity. In the Far East, we see a bullying regime in Beijing trying to lay claim to entire seas at the expense of democratic allies like Japan and the Philippines.

And in Russia, Vladimir Putin thinks being a manly man means throwing three young punk rockers into prison. But I say Mr. Putin has the courage of a pussy cat next to these gallant ladies.

Above all else is the challenge of Iran. President Clinton, when you were in the White House you said a nuclear Iran was unacceptable. President Bush said it was unacceptable. And President Obama calls it unacceptable as well. But Iran doesn't think we mean it. They think they can tiptoe across the nuclear finish line while we squabble publicly with Israel over how and when to stop them.

So the questions we face with Iran are these: Will we allow Tehran to flout the will of three U.S. presidents and get away with it? Should a regime that can take a stone in its right hand to execute a defenseless woman be given a nuclear weapon in its left hand to use likewise against Israel or, someday, us?

The right response begins by communicating our purposes with unmistakable clarity. Let the leaders of Iran know that on the day I become president their choices will narrow to two: Either they abandon their nuclear program, immediately and completely, or we will make them abandon it. Nobody wants a third Middle Eastern war. But much less do we want the Third World War we would risk if Iran gained nuclear weapons.

The right response also requires standing for our principles. I deplore slanders against any religious faith—believe me, I know whereof I speak. But as president of the United States I will stand above all for American principles, beginning with the right of free speech. And I will not apologize for that right under the foolish and dishonorable assumption that we can pacify our enemies by joining in their denunciations of acts of free speech.

And speaking of principles, one of mine is that friends come first. So we will not try to appease the Russians at the expense of the Poles, or the Egyptians at the expense of Israelis, or the Chinese at the expense of anybody.

So clarity, principle—and then there's credibility. As my running mate Paul Ryan has said, our fiscal policy and our foreign policy are on a collision course. "To provide for the common defence" is a constitutional duty of government. And yet with each passing year, entitlements take up a larger share, and defense a smaller one, of our federal budget.

In Europe, they had a solution to this problem—and it was called the United States. But who has our back? The U.N.?

Make no mistake: As we debate our budgets, our adversaries in Tehran and Moscow and Beijing are looking for every gap in our defenses, every strain in our alliances and every sign of weakness in our will. And they are awaiting opportunities to exploit all three.

When I'm president, they won't find those opportunities. I know it is a heavy burden for America to be the world's policeman. But far heavier would be our burden if we were to forsake that role. Because we are not a disinterested party when it comes to securing democracy against despotism, civilization against barbarism, and order and fair play against the rule of the jungle.

Ladies and gentlemen, when President Kennedy said we would pay any price and bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty, he was telling us not to expect to have it easy. Greatness never is. But neither is America a country that has ever chosen the easy road. We're not about to begin now.

Lest anyone try to make the tired argument endlessly repeated by the Left that a capital gains tax rate which is lower than the general income tax rate is "unfair," take note that there is sound reasoning behind this idea. When income is taxed at the capital gains rate, that is the SECOND TIME the government has stuck its hand into that income. The person has ALREADY PAID TAXES ON THAT INCOME AT THE REGULAR RATE BEFORE THEY MADE THE INVESTMENT.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

"75% of his giving is to his Mormon Church; our tax dollars pay for those fine young fellows in white shirts and ties proselytizing around the world."

Giving to one's church is a well recognized form of charity. The proslytizing is but one aspect of the Church's work. Regardless of what you may think of the LDS church and its works, the simple fact is that Romney had the generosity of donate 30% of his income. That really is a very high percentage, considerably above BO, and leaving Biden far, far, far in the dust. Nonetheless the media focused on the 14% he paid because his income is mostly capital gains.

"And yes, his economic plan is to lower taxes for the rich, he's quite definite about that, but rather vague about what deductions if any he will cut for his rich friends. So his friends get richer and America pays."

JDN, you please don't continue to play Groundhog Day on tax rates. I suspect some of the snarkiness sometimes directed your way is a result of frustration with your tendency to do this on some issues. His plan is NOT to "lower taxes". His plan is to "lower tax rates". As has been repeatedly explained to you the two are not the same thing. Romney has repeatedly said that deductions will be eliminated in a manner so that net revenues will be unchanged. The vagueness is a political calculation that specificity would set off a special interest firestorm. One may agree or disagree with this calculation, but please accurately describe what his stated position is.

Also, in how you frame what you say, please remember that pretty much everyone here was looking for someone/anyone instead of Romney and that we now support him strongly because Obama is the alternative.

As for terms, I understand your point about "tax rate" being more precise, however I might point out that Bloomberg and numerous other publications often interchangeably use the terms "lower tax rate" and "lower taxes". Often you will read in respected publications that Romney is going to "lower taxes". It's semantics; most Americans don't differentiate. They do differentiate however because the perception is that he is only going to lower the taxes burden for the rich.

As for deductions, what Romney is saying is that "Yes, I am a very wealthy man, yes, I intend to lower the tax rate for the rich substantially by x %, and yes, I will eliminate some deductions the rich often use, but I don't know what they are at this time. Just trust me. wink wink"

And that's why he's having a credibility problem.....

Huntsman, on the other hand suggested drastically reducing the tax rate AND eliminating all deductions including charity. (Huntsman was also Mormon so I assume he also gave his 10%). That kind of plan I like and respect.

Huntsman had a real big credibility problem-- he only got the support of 1-2% of the voters.

I get that Bloomberg et al are sloppy in their terminology, but that is not reason for us here to do so. I ask you to please keep this in mind so that we do not have to have this conversation again.

I get that many folks don't trust Romney on this issue, but that is not reason or justification for you to misstate his position which is to cut rates AND deductions so that net progressivity remains unchanged i.e. total revenues generated remain the same (per static revenue assumptions)

Lest anyone try to make the tired argument endlessly repeated by the Left that a capital gains tax rate which is lower than the general income tax rate is "unfair," take note that there is sound reasoning behind this idea. When income is taxed at the capital gains rate, that is the SECOND TIME the government has stuck its hand into that income. The person has ALREADY PAID TAXES ON THAT INCOME AT THE REGULAR RATE BEFORE THEY MADE THE INVESTMENT.

I'm missing something.

Let's say I buy a 100 shares of Apple at 100. Yes, I paid tax on the money to buy the stock.

Now let's say Apple rises to 700 per share. Have I already paid tax on the 600 gain? No.

So why should that gain be taxed at a lower rate than a wage earner?

Why should the stock picker who makes a million dollars a year (the increased amount of his portfolio) pay a lower tax rate on the increased amount than the policeman who is merely a wage earner?

No one is asking anyone to pay tax on money that has already been taxed; but rather pay tax on money that has not been taxed before, i.e. the income.

If I put money in a Savings Account. My principle isn't taxed, but the interest I earned is taxed at a high rate. What's the difference if I buy a stock or a company or a piece of real estate and it goes up in value versus my savings account?

Huntsman had a real big credibility problem-- he only got the support of 1-2% of the voters.

You are right; the right wing did not accept him, but he made sense to me and he was eminently qualified. I bet if he was running, he would be ahead in the polls.

I get that Bloomberg et al are sloppy in their terminology, but that is not reason for us here to do so. I ask you to please keep this in mind so that we do not have to have this conversation again.

Odd, what I post you concede is good enough for Bloomberg et al but not here....., but others can post absurdity without being chastised?

I get that many folks don't trust Romney on this issue, but that is not reason or justification for you to misstate his position which is to cut rates AND deductions so that net progressivity remains unchanged i.e. total revenues generated remain the same (per static revenue assumptions)

I think I've seen Obama's position misstated or simply quoted inaccurately here often enough without the poster being chastised? Is there a double standard?

JDN, You are ignoring the corporate tax of the US and Calif, HIGHEST IN THE WORLD, in your Apple stock example. Are they secretly exempt from corporate taxation? Is Bain?? The income on the 600 in your example was ALREADY TAXED.

The tax rate on that income is roughly 35% + 10% + 15% + 10% and that equals 15% ?? ?? ?? ?? This should be on the education/math thread

In making the same mistake over and over you are also ignoring years and years of posts on the forum that pointed this out ad nauseum.

"Tedious".

Huntsman: "the right wing did not accept him"

Nor did the middle wing or left wing. Someone rational would support Huntsman's economic plan to the right of Romney but then vote for Obama's agenda for collective decline and redistribution?

"I bet if he was running, he would be ahead in the polls." - HE DID RUN AND HE LOST!

"I think I've seen Obama's position misstated or simply quoted inaccurately here often enough without the poster being chastised? Is there a double standard?"

No, we don't have to misquote him to make points in opposition. All you're defeating with that is the straw man. With everyone else here, inaccuracies caught are followed with corrections and apologies it seems to me. Romney isn't raising taxes or tax rates on the middle class; that is pure drivel and intentional deception. Typical of your posts IMO there, you throw your mud while offering NOTHING to back it up. Where did we lie about Pres. Obama?

Driving away good posters and bringing down the discussion, is what you are doing intentional?

"I think I've seen Obama's position misstated or simply quoted inaccurately here often enough without the poster being chastised? Is there a double standard?"

No, we don't have to misquote him to make points in opposition. With everyone else here, inaccuracies caught are followed with corrections and apologies it seems to me.

Really?

Romney isn't raising taxes or tax rates on the middle class; that is pure drivel and intentional deception. Did I say Romney was raising taxes or the tax rate on the middle class? No, I never said that. I said he was lowering taxes (the tax rate) for the upper class.

Typical of your posts IMO there, you throw your mud while offering NOTHING to back it up. Where did we lie about Pres. Obama?

Did I say Romney was raising taxes or the tax rate on the middle class? No, I never said that. I said he was lowering taxes (the tax rate) for the upper class.

Poster JDN wrote: in Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 18, 2012, 08:55:08 AM"Romney's tax plan? It's a give to to rich and take from the middle class plan. So he and his friends can all own their own private aircraft AND deduct it from their taxes."

Drivel, deception and hate speech. I regret the time spent going through your posts to find what you don't admit or remember posting.

I repeat, I never said "Romney was raising taxes or the tax rate on the middle class".

I did say he will cut the tax rate for the upper class, and he, or the Republicans, are proposing cutting quite a few middle class programs.i.e. "He is giving to the rich and taking from the middle class."

But I never said he is raising the middle class' tax rate.

No drivel, no deception, and definitely no hate. Further, I'm pleased that my memory is still functioning perfectly.

"So why should that gain be taxed at a lower rate than a wage earner?"

a) Because unlike the wage earner, one can LOSE money in the market. I speak from experience.

b) Furthermore, though the gain may have occurred over years, it is taxed in the year it the gain is actualized. If income tax rates were applied this often means a person will be pushed into the higher brackets even though were the gain to be spread out over the years in question on an annualized basis it would be in a lower bracket;

c) Inflation. Capital gains occur over longer time frames, sometimes quite long. Thus a goodly portion of the gain is often nominal and not actual.

"Under my opponent's tax plan, 106 fans at the game would get an average tax cut of $250,000, and about 100,000 fans would have to pay for it,"--------"Tax" and "pay for it" in terms of public finance have different meanings?? An ugly waste of my time trying to prove to you what YOU posted recently on these pages. The adventure detoured.

I did say he will cut the tax rate for the upper class, and he, or the Republicans, are proposing cutting quite a few middle class programs.i.e. "He is giving to the rich and taking from the middle class."

1. Why would anyone who is middle class need a program?

2. How is allowing people who made money legally keep a bit more of it "taking it from the middle class"?

I did say he will cut the tax rate for the upper class, and he, or the Republicans, are proposing cutting quite a few middle class programs.i.e. "He is giving to the rich and taking from the middle class."

1. Why would anyone who is middle class need a program?

2. How is allowing people who made money legally keep a bit more of it "taking it from the middle class"?

Yes, admitting middle class dependency is the objective. They must have worn out the take from the poor, push Granny off the cliff lines or admit those votes are already sewn up within the alleged 47% - while the middle class are starting to see they and their children will be paying for the Obama disaster if we should survive it.

I did say he will cut the tax rate for the upper class, and he, or the Republicans, are proposing cutting quite a few middle class programs.i.e. "He is giving to the rich and taking from the middle class."

1. Why would anyone who is middle class need a program?

2. How is allowing people who made money legally keep a bit more of it "taking it from the middle class"?

Yes, admitting middle class dependency is the objective. They must have worn out the take from the poor, push Granny off the cliff lines or admit those votes are already sewn up within the alleged 47% - while the middle class are starting to see they and their children will be paying for the Obama disaster if we should survive it.

Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election."

Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election."

The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government.

What We DoTPC provides timely, accessible analysis and facts about tax policy to policymakers, journalists, citizens, and researchers. Its major products are

Model estimates: The TPC Microsimulation Model produces revenue and distribution estimates for the latest tax proposals and bills. More information about the tax model is available in the overview and a detailed methodology paper.

Library: Research by TPC staff is disseminated in a variety of publications, including two TPC series - Issues and Options briefs and Discussion papers. The TPC also has regular columns in Tax Notes magazine.

Tax Facts: The Tax Facts database compiles facts and figures from government agencies and other sources.

The Tax Policy Briefing Book: A Citizens' Guide for the 2012 Election and Beyond A handy primer on how the tax system works."— Tom Herman, WSJ. A compendium of information on a host of questions likely to be addressed during the 2008 presidential election debate and beyond. This briefing book is intended as a resource for the public, the press, and even the presidential campaigns-in short, for anyone who wants to be well informed about current tax and budget matters.

The Brookings Institution defines itself as "a private nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and innovative policy solutions." Professing to be without a political agenda, it aims to "provide the highest quality research, policy recommendations, and analysis on the full range of public policy issues … for decision-makers in the U.S. and abroad on the full range of challenges facing an increasingly interdependent world."

The Brookings Institution is an outgrowth of the Institute for Government Research (IGR), which was founded in 1916 to analyze public policy issues at the national level. In 1922 and 1924, one of IGR's supporters, St. Louis businessman and philanthropist Robert Somers Brookings (1850-1932), established two sister organizations: the Institute of Economics and a graduate school (as part of Washington University) bearing his name. In 1927, the three entities merged to form the Brookings Institution. Its first Board included Mr. Brookings; Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter; Charles W. Eliot, former President of Harvard; Fredric Delano, uncle of future President Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Herbert Hoover; and Frank Goodnow, who would become the first Chairman of the IGR's Board of Trustees and President of Johns Hopkins University.

Mr. Brookings officially opposed FDR's expansion of the welfare state during the Great Depression, and then-Brookings Institution President Harold Moulton concluded that the National Recovery Administration had actually impeded recovery. The Institution assisted in the planning of World War II, providing the government with manpower estimates and price control data; it also offered suggestions on the most efficient way to carry out the rebuilding of Europe after the War.

The Brookings Institution's capacity to shape government policy increased dramatically in the 1950s, when it received substantial grants from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. President Robert Calkins reorganized the Institution into Economic Studies, Government Studies, and Foreign Policy Studies programs, and by the mid-1960s Brookings was conducting nearly 100 research projects per year for the government as well as for private industry, making it the preeminent source of research in the world.

Under the Nixon administration, Brookings' relationship with the White House deteriorated, largely because many of the Brookings staff were Democrats who identified with the policies of the Great Society, opposed the Vietnam War, and advocated America's accelerated or unilateral nuclear disarmament. Brookings became part of the Watergate investigation as a result of Nixon’s decision to authorize a break-in to the Institution’s headquarters in 1971, in connection with the Pentagon Papers leak; He also ordered the FBI to wiretap the telephone of Morton Halperin, a Brookings Fellow.

Brookings tipped back to the political right in the 1970s and 80s, as evidenced by the presence of longtime Republicans like Stephen Hess (one-time speechwriter for President Eisenhower) and Roger Semerad (former Assistant Secretary of Labor under Ronald Reagan) in key positions. Brookings' then-President, Bruce MacLaury, was Under-Secretary of the Treasury for President Nixon.

Brookings has in recent years shifted back to the political left, particularly in its foreign policy positions. Condemning President Bush's Iraq policy, in April 2004 Brookings hosted Senator Edward Kennedy in an event aimed at discrediting the Iraq War. As the 2004 Presidential election neared, the Institution's Fellows endorsed Democratic candidate John Kerry's call for a "more sensitively" fought war on terrorism. They have also called for the American government to permit Islamic radicals like Tariq Ramadan to enter the U.S. with work visas.

Brookings has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including the Global Governance Initiative, which aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government, based in part on economic and Third World considerations. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bush's tax cuts in 2003.

The research topics addressed by the Brookings Institution include: Business, Cities and Suburbs, Defense, Economics, Education, Environment and Energy, Governance, Politics, Science and Technology, and Social Policy.

The Brookings Institution's President since 2002 has been Strobe Talbott, who served as President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State. The Board of Trustees features Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of John Kerry; Zoe Baird, failed Clinton appointee for Attorney General; and Lawrence Summers, former Harvard President and U.S. Treasury Secretary.

Brookings income derives from a wide variety of sources, including seminars run for government and businesses, and a vast array of corporate and government contracts. In recent years, Brookings has received grants from the Aetna Foundation; the American Express Foundation; the Open Society Institute; the Fannie Mae Foundation; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; the Ford Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the MacArthur Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Rockefeller Brothers Fund; the AT&T Foundation, the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, the Heinz Family Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Turner Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, and the Verizon Foundation. In 2004, grants to the Brookings Institutions totaled $32,107,359.

Also as of 2004, the Brookings Institution's net assets were valued at $248,205,816.

Describes itself as a "nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization established to examine the social, economic, and governance problems" facing the U.S. Favors socialized health care, expansion of federal welfare bureaucracy, and tax hikes for higher income-earners Ascribed the 1992 Los Angeles riots to the rioters' justified rage at society's economic and racial inequities

The Urban Institute (UI) was founded in 1968 by a panel of government officials and civic leaders. Then-President Lyndon Johnson called the group together to monitor the vast array of Great Society programs his administration had created. UI's first President was William Gorham, who had served from 1965-1968 as Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In 2000, he was succeeded as UI President by Robert Reischauer.

The Urban Institute describes itself as a "nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization established to examine the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation [the United States]." It publishes studies, reports, and books on topics it deems worthy of public consideration. UI's research focuses on the areas of Crime and Justice; Economy and Taxes; Education; Healthcare; Housing; Welfare; and Work and Income. In addition, it operates an "Assessing the New Federalism Project," a multi-year survey on the effect of the transfer of social welfare programs from the federal government to the states. Financed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and a consortium of philanthropies, the findings of this project confirmed the Casey Foundation's belief that adequate incomes and child care arrangements can best be ensured by increased government spending and an expansion of federal welfare programs.

In 1980, UI called for socialized health care in the United States, and in 1982 began a running critique of the Reagan Administration under its Changing Domestic Priorities Project; the critique ran to 26 volumes, with research paid for by the Ford Foundation.

In 1990, UI put together a similar critique of the administration of President George H.W. Bush. In the wake of the Los Angeles riots in 1992, UI became a leading policy-center apologist for urban black violence, focusing on societal and economic, rather than moral and criminal, factors in its analysis of the riots.

In 2001, UI and the Brookings Institution began collaboration on a Tax Policy Center (TPC) to discredit President George W. Bush's tax cut plans, which UI claimed disproportionately and unjustly favored "the wealthy."

Lamenting the societal obstacles that allegedly prevent African Americans from prospering, a May 2006 UI report "exposes the dire education and employment straits of young black men," stating that "

nly half of black men age 16 to 24 who are out of school are employed at any given time." The report explains this phenomenon as follows: "The good blue-collar jobs that men with high school diplomas or less could expect to get a generation ago -- in manufacturing and other sectors -- have either disappeared or pay much less than before. The education and skills required for higher-paying jobs have clearly risen…. Meanwhile, the prospect of getting stuck in low-wage service jobs, which are available, holds little appeal."

Making a case for taxpayer-funded system of socialized medicine, another May 2006 UI report concludes that "public insurance appears to offer the best financial protection from high out-of-pocket expenses and financial burden for low-income families."

In a June 2006 report on immigration and government tax revenues, UI concludes that: "Immigrants in Washington, D.C. pay their fair share of the region's tax bill. The most educated foreign-born earners actually pay more in taxes than natives; the lower skilled contribute too." This report makes no distinction between legal immigrants and illegal aliens, the latter of whom it refers to as "unauthorized immigrants."

Among UI's donors are the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Ford Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Aetna Foundation; the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation; the Nathan Cummings Foundation; the Ahmanson Foundation; the Energy Foundation; the W.K. Kellogg Foundation; the American Express Foundation; the Fannie Mae Foundation; the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; the JEHT Foundation; the J.M. Kaplan Fund; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Open Society Institute; the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; the Public Welfare Foundation; the Surdna Foundation; the Bank of America Foundation; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; the Joyce Foundation; the Minneapolis Foundation; the Woods Fund of Chicago; and the Verizon Foundation.

From 1996 to 2003, UI received over $60 million in foundation money. In addition, the federal government awarded UI nearly $55 million during the last few years of the Clinton administration. UI now employs a staff of 378 and has an annual budget of $70 million.

The Tax Policy Center (TPC) made headlines with its analysis of Governor Mitt Romney’s tax reform plan. The authors of the TPC report found, incorrectly as it turns out, that Romney’s plan would “necessitate” a tax increase on middle- and low-income taxpayers.

Their conclusion is wrong and the report flawed because the authors made a series of assumptions and choices that lead them to their carefully selected result.Romney’s plan does what most sensible tax reform plans do to increase incentives to engage in the activities that create economic growth: It cuts marginal tax rates and reduces the tax bias on saving and investment.The Romney plan offsets the revenue lost from those improvements by broadening the tax base (i.e., eliminating credits, deductions, exemptions, and exclusions, otherwise known as “tax preferences”) in unspecified ways. And it makes these changes without shifting the share of taxes paid by various income groups.

The TPC authors chose to frame their analysis on the hot-button issue of tax distribution by ignoring the fact that Romney’s plan doesn’t shift the tax burden. They could’ve chosen to analyze all the aspects of the Romney plan. Instead, though the Romney plan doesn’t specify, the TPC authors chose which tax preferences they thought the plan would eliminate.

Importantly, they “took off the table” (their words) several tax preferences that mostly benefit upper-income taxpayers. Then they analyzed how the Romney plan’s pro-growth changes would affect tax distribution after closing their selected tax preferences.

However, changing the assumptions the TPC authors made leads to a different conclusion. Governor Romney’s tax plan can make pro-growth changes to taxes without raising taxes on middle- and low-income taxpayers.

Tax reform is an issue vital to the economy’s revitalization. Until Washington overhauls the tax code to lower rates and make other growth-oriented changes to the tax code, the economy will not recover as strongly as it should.

For politicians and the public to make the right decisions about tax reform, they need accurate information. To help advance the debate, instead of weighing it down with flawed analysis, the TPC authors should show how Governor Romney’s plan doesn’t have to raise taxes on middle- and low-income taxpayers. They could further advance the debate with a discussion of the benefits the Romney plan would have for economic growth.

It isn't easy being the intellectual frontmen for President Obama's re-election campaign, as the boys at the Brookings-Urban Institute Tax Policy Center are discovering. Their ballyhooed study of Mitt Romney's tax plan looks worse with each new examination.Mr. Romney's tax plan would cut income tax rates across the board by 20%, while cutting loopholes that mostly benefit those in the highest income classes. The Tax Policy Center claims it is "mathematically impossible" to finance the rate cut without jacking up taxes by $86 billion on the middle class and poor. Mr. Obama has jumped on the study to support his claims that Mr. Romney would raise taxes, though the Republican has proposed no such thing.

The study's biggest distortion is its raw assertion that Mr. Romney would refuse to close certain loopholes. In the appendix, the Tax Policy Center lists, among others, two giant tax deductions that it says would go untouched: the exclusion of interest on tax-exempt municipal bonds, and the exclusion of interest on life insurance savings. The study claims that Mr. Romney won't close these because they are incentives for saving and investment.

One problem: Nowhere do Mitt Romney or his advisers say that these deductions can't be touched. Senior economic adviser Glenn Hubbard says these deductions are definitely "on the table." ...

Scholars at the American Enterprise Institute examined what happens to the Tax Policy Center math when this error is corrected. AEI economic research associate Matt Jensen found that "Both of these exclusions largely benefit the wealthy, and, according to the Treasury Department, added together their repeal would net upwards of $90 billion that could be redistributed to lower-income individuals. That would go a long way towards balancing the supposed $86 billion windfall for the rich and tax hike on the middle class and poor, and it could make the impossible suddenly possible." [How the Tax Policy Center Could Improve its Romney Tax Study]The AEI analysis warns that these numbers change from year to year, but it concludes that by eliminating these two deductions and a few other smaller ones, Mr. Romney can make his math add up. In other words, poof, no tax hike on the middle class.

This won't stop the Obama campaign from making its false claims, but it ought to at least embarrass the media into questioning them. It should also embarrass the analysts at the Tax Policy Center who claim to be nonpartisan, above-the-fray economists but somehow always seem to provide analysis that serves those who want to raise tax rates.[/b]

Nice job by GM of answering the Tax Policy Center left wing opinion piece. Brookings, Urban Institute and TPC are objective, unbiased? I wonder if the original poster takes groups like Heritage and Cato as non-partisan as well.

Deductibility of municipal bonds is off-limits? What kind of an assumption is that when Romney has said explicitly that big deductions will be closed for the wealthiest. Isn't an end to deductibility of municipal bond interest a certainty if 2nd term Obama triples the tax rate on capital gains? Otherwise how would ANY private money ever flow into capital investment?

Mathematical impossibility was already proven for the status quo; we don't need a TPC analysis: “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office", he said.

What did the 'non-partisan' TPC write about THAT?

What standard are we holding the Romney to? The choice is a competing economic plan that yields 0.0% growth and trillion dollar deficits that will quadruple when Obamacare's full costs materialize and when QE is exposed as witchcraft and interest rates on our debt jump up to market rates.

"But the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was one of the principals on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased simply isn’t credible -- a point underscored by the fact that the Romney campaign referred to the group’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary campaign."

or the comment,

"Mr. Romney's tax plan would cut income tax rates across the board by 20%, while cutting loopholes that mostly benefit those in the highest income classes."

What loopholes is he going to cut? The silence is deafening.

It's all a mystery. "reduce taxes" It's a soundbite; heck even I like lower taxes; who doesn't, but he is ignoring the tough part; the offsetting/cutting of "loopholes".

Mitt Romney to NBC on Wednesday:"I think throughout this campaign as well, we talked about my record in Massachusetts, don't forget -- I got everybody in my state insured," Romney told NBC's Ron Allen in an interview before his rally here tonight. "One hundred percent of the kids in our state had health insurance. I don't think there's anything that shows more empathy and care about the people of this country than that kind of record."

Right! Good! But while today's words are welcome, they coexist uncomfortably with the healthcare platform to which Mitt Romney has committed himself."